Week of February 2, 2026 | Iran Unfiltered is a digest tracking Iranian politics & society by the National Iranian American Council

• Iran–U.S. Negotiations Restart: Cautious Progress, Maximum Pressure, and Uncertain Prospects
• Passing of Nematollah Mirzadeh (M. Azarm), Iranian Social Poet and Writer
• Iran Instructs Police to Issue Motorcycle Licenses to Women Amid Longstanding Legal Dispute
• Minors Killed During Iran’s Nationwide Protests: Ongoing Documentation and Uncertainty
• From Escalation to Engagement: Iran–U.S. Tensions Reach a Peak as Diplomacy Reopens
• Iran Publishes Names of Protest Victims as Official and Independent Accounts Present Divergent Casualty Figures

Iran–U.S. Negotiations Restart: Cautious Progress, Maximum Pressure, and Uncertain Prospects

Negotiations between Iran and the United States concluded in Muscat, Oman, with both sides agreeing to continue the dialogue, even as Washington escalated pressure within hours by imposing new oil-related sanctions. The talks mark the first formal diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Washington since negotiations were suspended last summer following a brief but intense regional conflict, and they took place amid heightened military tensions, political mistrust, and sharply divided reactions inside Iran.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei announced that the Muscat talks ended with a mutual understanding to continue negotiations. He said both sides presented their positions and demands and agreed that decisions on the next round would be made after consultations in Tehran and Washington, confirming that the talks have entered a consultative phase rather than producing immediate outcomes.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi described the discussions as “very serious and useful,” stating that they helped clarify the perspectives of both parties and identify potential areas for progress. He emphasized that the results would be carefully reviewed in both capitals before deciding when and how to reconvene, reiterating Muscat’s commitment to continuing its mediating role.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also struck a cautiously positive tone, calling the negotiations “a good start.” He described the talks as “long and intensive,” involving multiple meetings in which the views of Iran and the opposing side were fully exchanged, and stressed that continuation depends on internal consultations and further coordination with Oman regarding the timing, location, and format of future negotiations.

While Iranian and Omani officials publicly described the talks as indirect, new reporting indicates that the negotiations were at least partially direct. According to Barak Ravid of Axios, Trump advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met directly with Abbas Araghchi during the Muscat talks, citing two sources briefed on the issue. Axios reported that the U.S. and Iran plan to continue nuclear talks following this first round, suggesting a more flexible diplomatic format than publicly acknowledged.

According to Oman’s Foreign Ministry, Al Busaidi held separate consultations with the Iranian delegation led by Araghchi and the American delegation headed by Witkoff, with the participation of Kushner. The statement said the discussions focused on laying the groundwork for resuming diplomatic and technical negotiations and underscored their importance for sustainable regional security and stability, while reaffirming Oman’s role in bridging differences between the two sides.

Iran has reiterated that it remains willing to negotiate over its nuclear program, while firmly insisting that its missile capabilities are not subject to negotiation. Iranian officials have warned that Tehran will resist “excessive demands” from Washington. At the same time, international reporting and U.S. political messaging indicate that Washington continues to seek a broader scope for negotiations, including missile and regional issues—an approach Iran has consistently rejected.

The diplomatic engagement unfolded alongside explicit military signaling. As the U.S. delegation arrived in Muscat, American naval forces were reported to be operating near Iran’s borders. Multiple outlets cited U.S. officials as saying that Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, was present as part of the American team—an unusual step in high-level diplomacy that observers widely interpret as a reminder that military options remain on the table if talks fail.

At the same time, Iranian state media highlighted the operational deployment of the Khorramshahr-4 long-range ballistic missile in underground missile bases operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although information about the missile had been released previously, its renewed prominence during the talks was widely seen as a deterrent signal, reinforcing Iran’s position that its missile program is non-negotiable.

Within hours of the talks’ conclusion, the United States announced new sanctions targeting 15 entities and 14 oil tankers linked to what Washington described as illegal trade in Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and petrochemicals. U.S. officials said the vessels were part of Iran’s “shadow fleet,” used to evade sanctions. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the measures reflect President Donald Trump’s commitment under a “maximum pressure” campaign to reduce Iran’s oil exports and related revenues. The timing of the sanctions—immediately after talks framed as constructive—underscored the dual-track nature of U.S. policy: diplomacy pursued alongside intensified economic coercion.

International reactions reflected broader geopolitical alignments. China publicly stated its support for Iran, saying it backs Tehran in defending its sovereignty and legitimate interests and opposes “unilateral bullying.” Russia, meanwhile, warned that relations between Iran and the United States are in an “explosive” state, cautioning that miscalculations could destabilize the entire Middle East, while signaling readiness to assist if an agreement is eventually reached.

Inside Iran, reactions revealed a deeply divided political landscape. Several members of parliament expressed strong skepticism, arguing that past experience shows the United States cannot be trusted and that negotiations conducted under pressure are unlikely to succeed. Esmail Kosari said bluntly that the talks would not yield results, accusing Washington of attempting to impose unacceptable demands, particularly on Iran’s missile program. Others, including Qasem Ravanbakhsh, described Washington’s return to the negotiating table under an indirect, nuclear-focused format as a diplomatic success for Iran, arguing that sincere engagement could eventually produce outcomes.

Beyond parliament, former Tehran mayor Gholamhossein Karbaschi urged Iran’s leadership to bring the long-running nuclear standoff to an end, arguing that prolonged sanctions have imposed severe economic and social costs and that public demand is increasingly focused on relief from sustained pressure. Legal analyst Kambiz Norouzi criticized domestic media restrictions, warning that weakened internal media capacity has left public opinion heavily influenced by external narratives at a moment of high national sensitivity.

Taken together, the Muscat talks represent a significant procedural development: the reopening of a structured diplomatic channel, now revealed to include limited direct engagement, through which Tehran and Washington can clarify positions and test whether negotiations are viable. At the same time, the immediate imposition of new sanctions, continued military signaling, and unresolved disagreements over scope highlight the fragility of the process.

These negotiations matter because they restore a channel for dialogue at a moment of elevated regional risk, but it remains far too early to predict their outcome. Whether this track evolves into sustained diplomacy, settles into prolonged stalemate, or collapses under political and security pressures will depend on decisions taken in the coming days and weeks in Tehran and Washington—decisions with significant implications for regional stability and global security.

Passing of Nematollah Mirzadeh (M. Azarm), Iranian Social Poet and Writer

Nematollah Mirzadeh, known by the pen name M. Azarm, a prominent Iranian poet, writer, and former university professor, passed away on Sunday, February 2, 2026 (13 Bahman 1404), at the age of 87 in Paris. A member of the Iranian Writers’ Association, Mirzadeh is widely regarded by literary scholars as one of Iran’s leading social poets, whose work was deeply shaped by the country’s turbulent political and historical transformations.

Born on March 20, 1939 (1 Esfand 1317) in Mashhad, Mirzadeh came from a family with strong political roots dating back to the Constitutional Revolution. This background profoundly influenced his worldview and literary sensibility. From an early age, he showed exceptional engagement with classical Persian literature and became politically active during the upheavals that followed the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

Mirzadeh began his literary career in journalism while still in high school and later founded literary supplements for several newspapers in Mashhad. His friendship and collaboration with Mohammad-Reza Shafi‘i Kadkani proved formative, leading to the publication of his first major work, Poetry Today in Khorasan (1964). Over the following decades, he published numerous poetry collections and scholarly works, often drawing on classical poetic forms such as the qasida to articulate modern political and social critique, while also writing in modern Persian verse.

His commitment to social and political expression came at a high personal cost. Several of his poetry collections were censored or confiscated, and he was imprisoned multiple times before the 1979 revolution. The publication of his collection Sahouri led to his arrest and imprisonment, and the book circulated clandestinely even after being banned.

Initially supportive of the revolution, Mirzadeh soon became a vocal critic of the emerging Islamic Republic. Within weeks of the revolution’s victory, he broke with the new ruling establishment and became part of the first generation of writers marginalized and persecuted by the post-revolutionary state. His poetry from this period reflects a deepening disillusionment with authoritarianism and the closure of intellectual space.

After repeated threats and a raid on his home, Mirzadeh was forced into exile, leaving Iran via Pakistan and settling in France. His property and personal library in Iran were confiscated. In exile, he remained intensely productive, joining the Iranian Writers’ Association in Exile and publishing a substantial body of work that became central to Persian literature of exile. His collections from this period include In the Fog of Exile, From Poppies and Dew, Sunflower, The Rising Sun, and Between the Horizons of Yesterday and Tomorrow.

Alongside his literary work, Mirzadeh was deeply committed to cultural education. In 2000, he founded the Iran-Kadeh Center for Persian Language and Culture in Paris, where he taught Persian language and literature and mentored younger generations of Iranian writers and students in exile.

Until the final years of his life, Mirzadeh never ceased writing poetry, believing continuous creation to be a moral and historical responsibility. Literary critics emphasize the importance of his body of work in tracing the evolution of Iran’s cultural memory, as his poems document decades of political repression, resistance, hope, and disillusionment.

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) recognizes Mirzadeh’s life and work, which represents the enduring struggle for cultural expression and human rights among Iranians both inside and outside the country. The passing of Nematollah Mirzadeh is mourned by his family, friends, fellow writers, and admirers of Iranian literature around the world. His loss is felt deeply by those who cherish Persian culture and the rich legacy of poetic resistance he helped shape. May his memory be a blessing to his loved ones and to all who find in his poems a reflection of Iran’s complex history and enduring human spirit.

Iran Instructs Police to Issue Motorcycle Licenses to Women Amid Longstanding Legal Dispute

The Iranian government has instructed the country’s law enforcement authorities to begin issuing motorcycle driving licenses to women, marking a significant administrative shift after years of legal ambiguity and institutional resistance. The decision was made through a Cabinet resolution adopted on 8 Bahman 1404 and formally communicated on 14 Bahman 1404 by First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref to the Law Enforcement Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Under the resolution, the police are required to provide the groundwork for issuing motorcycle licenses to women, including practical training for female applicants and the administration of licensing examinations under the direct supervision of traffic police. However, the measure does not amend existing traffic laws and is therefore considered an executive decision rather than a legislative reform, leaving its legal durability uncertain.

Despite the absence of formal licensing, women’s use of motorcycles in Iran has increased in recent years, particularly following the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement. Images and videos of women riding motorcycles have circulated widely, highlighting a growing gap between social realities and formal regulations. The government’s latest decision appears to acknowledge this reality by seeking to bring an already widespread practice under formal oversight.

The decision follows years of dispute over whether Iranian law explicitly prohibits women from obtaining motorcycle licenses. Some legal experts argue that no clear legal ban exists, and that the exclusion of women has resulted from restrictive administrative interpretations by the police. Central to the controversy is the wording of traffic regulations in which responsibility for issuing motorcycle licenses is assigned to the police using language that explicitly refers to “men,” without mentioning women, a formulation that law enforcement authorities have cited to justify their refusal to issue licenses to women.

Iran’s traffic police have consistently maintained that they are bound by formally enacted laws and that issuing motorcycle licenses to women would require explicit legal authorization. As recently as last year, senior police officials stated that implementation would only be possible after official legal reforms were formally communicated. During the same period, the government announced that it had submitted or prepared a bill for parliament to revise the relevant laws, but the fate of that bill remains unclear.

Opposition within parliament has been vocal. Mohammad Seraj, a member of the Social Affairs Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, stated that lawmakers would oppose any legislation allowing women to obtain motorcycle licenses. He argued that women would not be able to maintain what he described as “proper coverage” while riding motorcycles and claimed the issue would provoke opposition from religious families, reflecting broader ideological resistance within conservative political circles.

The issue has also been contested in the courts. In 2018, a woman from Isfahan filed a complaint with the Administrative Justice Court challenging the refusal to issue her a motorcycle license. Although a lower court initially ruled in her favor, the decision was overturned on appeal, reinforcing the lack of a stable legal precedent. Legal experts have since warned that administrative measures on this issue remain vulnerable to judicial review and reversal.

Whether the resolution will result in sustained and nationwide issuance of motorcycle licenses to women remains uncertain. Its implementation depends on law enforcement compliance, as well as the absence of political or judicial pushback. As such, the decision represents a notable but fragile administrative shift within Iran’s broader legal and political framework.

Minors Killed During Iran’s Nationwide Protests: Ongoing Documentation and Uncertainty

As nationwide protests in Iran have been met with widespread arrests and the use of lethal force, growing evidence indicates that a significant number of school-aged children were among those killed. While multiple actors have released figures and partial documentation, the final and fully verified number of deaths of minors remains unclear, reflecting broader challenges related to access, transparency, and verification.

The Coordination Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations has reported that the number of children killed during the protests has exceeded 160. According to the council’s spokesperson, Mohammad Habibi, new names of minors have continued to surface over time, even after earlier lists were believed to be complete. In public statements, the council has described the documentation process as ongoing and noted that the victims were children and adolescents who would still be attending classes if their lives had not been cut short.

Iranian authorities, for their part, state that the overall number of people killed during the protests stands at 3,117. Officials have acknowledged that this figure is not final and that authorities do not yet possess the full list of names. To address this, the government has launched a public website inviting families to submit additional information and names of those believed to have died during the unrest. While authorities – including members of parliament overseeing educational affairs – have confirmed that minors under the age of 18 have been among those killed, they have not published a specific breakdown identifying which of those killed are minors. They have also indicated that detailed data from law-enforcement agencies regarding the number of detained, injured, or killed students has not yet been made public.

At least ten of the student names documented by the teachers’ council do not appear in the government’s published list. At the same time, available comparisons suggest that the official figures are broadly close to those reported by teachers’ representatives, underscoring both areas of overlap and that available data is changing as more fatalities come to light.

Human rights organizations have also documented child and student casualties. Aggregated data published by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reports 6,941 confirmed deaths overall, including 171 children. HRANA’s reporting is based on compiling information from families, local sources, activists, and media outlets. The organization has not released a public list of names for child victims and notes that an additional 11,630 cases remain under review, indicating that casualty figures remain provisional.

Arrests increased sharply during the protests, with human rights groups estimating that tens of thousands of people were detained, though precise figures remain difficult to verify due to restricted access and limited official disclosure. HRANA reports 50,921 arrests, 11,021 seriously injured civilians, 307 reported cases of forced confessions, and 11,047 summonses. Reports of student arrests have also emerged, raising further concerns about the impact of the crackdown on educational communities.

Despite the publication of official figures and ongoing documentation by teachers’ associations, human rights organizations, and journalists, the full scope of student deaths has not yet been conclusively established. Differences in methodologies, continued review of unresolved cases, and the absence of detailed official breakdowns mean that current numbers should be understood as evolving rather than definitive.

What remains consistent across all available sources is that children and students were among those killed during the protests. Documentation efforts continue alongside broader attempts to establish a comprehensive and accurate account of the human cost of the unrest.

From Escalation to Engagement: Iran–U.S. Tensions Reach a Peak as Diplomacy Reopens

Published February 5, 2026

After months of steadily escalating tensions marked by military deployments, sharp rhetoric, and repeated warnings of a wider conflict, relations between Iran and the United States appear to have reached a critical inflection point. At a moment when confrontation seemed increasingly likely, diplomatic engagement has cautiously resurfaced, suggesting a shift from escalation toward negotiation—though under highly fragile and uncertain conditions and against a backdrop of ongoing military and security incidents across the region.

This tentative diplomatic opening has emerged amid continued confrontations on land, at sea, and in the air. Most notably, the U.S. military confirmed that it shot down an Iranian reconnaissance drone as it approached the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier near the coast of Oman. Iranian media outlets close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps reported that the drone had successfully completed its patrol mission and transmitted surveillance imagery before losing contact, adding that the cause of the communication disruption was still under investigation. U.S. Central Command stated that an American F-35 fighter jet intercepted the drone in what it described as an act of self-defense to protect U.S. naval assets and personnel.

Despite the incident, Washington moved quickly to signal that military encounters would not derail diplomacy. The White House confirmed that the planned meeting between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian representatives would proceed as scheduled. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that President Donald Trump continues to favor diplomacy as the primary path forward, while stressing that progress would require genuine engagement from both sides.

Diplomatic maneuvering has intensified in parallel. Witkoff traveled to Israel ahead of the anticipated talks and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reiterated Israel’s deep skepticism toward Iran and emphasized what he described as non-negotiable demands related to Gaza, including the disarmament of Hamas, the demilitarization of the territory, and the full achievement of Israel’s war objectives prior to any reconstruction efforts. The timing of the visit underscored Israel’s intent to shape the broader strategic context surrounding U.S.–Iran engagement.

At the same time, uncertainty has surrounded the format and framework of the negotiations. President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is expected to be present at the upcoming meetings alongside Witkoff and Araghchi—a development that would mark one of the rare face-to-face encounters between senior Iranian and U.S. figures in recent years. 

Fresh complications emerged on February 4, 2026, casting doubt on whether the planned talks would proceed as scheduled after Iran made a request to change the location of Friday’s meeting from Turkey to Oman as well as for the discussion to focus solely on the nuclear issue. Initially, the U.S. declined, raising the prospect that the talks would collapse entirely. A senior U.S. official stated that “We want to reach a real deal with Iran quickly — otherwise people in Washington will start looking at other options.” This positioning significantly raised fears in the region that President Trump would pursue military action in lieu of talks. 

According to Axios, such concerns reportedly drove leaders from several Arab countries in the region to subsequently call on the White House to not cancel the meeting with Iran. Now, negotiations are back on, and will be held in Oman this Friday, focusing squarely on the nuclear issue. Ahead of Friday’s meeting, Witkoff and Kushner are set to travel to Qatar on Thursday to meet with the prime minister before traveling to Oman to then meet with Iran. Another U.S. official stated that “We are not naive about the Iranians. If there is a real conversation to have we will have it but we are not going to waste our time.” Even with the meeting now back on track, the day’s back-and-forth dynamic highlights just how fragile the conditions for diplomacy remain heading into Friday. 

In parallel with official diplomacy, Iranian political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi – aligned with the reformist camp – has warned that the outcome of the negotiations carries existential stakes for Iran. He argues that the failure of talks would not lead to democracy, regime change, development, or stability, but rather to deep instability, internal violence, destruction of infrastructure, environmental damage, displacement, and long-term national decline. Rejecting assumptions that Iranian society is inherently immune to large-scale violence, Zeidabadi points to recent mass casualties as evidence of how quickly social restraint can collapse in moments of turmoil. 

Zeidabadi stresses that even a war that inflicts heavy damage on adversaries would not alter the grim trajectory of internal disintegration, and cautions that opponents of the Islamic Republic would gain nothing from war and could instead become targets of public rage after the costs of war mount. From this perspective, he concludes that negotiation and agreement—supported by a broad national consensus—remain the only viable path to avert catastrophe and restore a minimal sense of normalcy, while also welcoming the reduced role of European actors in favor of regional and neighboring countries, which he argues are better positioned to facilitate de-escalation.

These diplomatic signals have unfolded amid renewed maritime tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy transit corridors. Britain’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported that multiple small IRGC-linked boats attempted to stop a U.S.-flagged commercial vessel north of Oman as it approached the strait, with the ship ultimately ignoring radio requests and continuing on its course. The tanker was then escorted by a U.S. warship. Iranian media close to the IRGC later denied that any security incident had occurred, reporting instead that a vessel had entered Iran’s territorial waters without authorization, was warned by Iranian monitoring units, and left immediately after receiving notice, with Iranian sources emphasizing that no security incident took place. The episode followed earlier vessel seizures by the IRGC in 2023 and 2024, some of which occurred after U.S. authorities confiscated oil tankers linked to Iran, underscoring the fragile and contested maritime environment in which diplomacy is now being pursued.

Regional diplomatic activity has intensified alongside these developments. Countries including Qatar, Turkey, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Pakistan have engaged in active consultations aimed at preventing further deterioration and avoiding military escalation. Pakistani officials confirmed that Islamabad has been invited to participate in the talks, describing its role as quietly facilitative, while Qatari officials stressed that de-escalation efforts are collective and warned that any new conflict would have catastrophic consequences for regional stability.

On the Iranian side, senior officials have framed negotiations as a strategic choice rather than a concession. President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that he had instructed Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to prepare the ground for “fair and dignified” negotiations, provided that talks take place without threats or unrealistic expectations and within the framework of Iran’s national interests. Other officials have echoed this position, emphasizing that seeking diplomacy does not amount to surrender.

At the same time, Iran’s leadership has continued to underline its deterrence posture. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned that any military attack on Iran would trigger a regional war, stating that Iran is not seeking to initiate conflict and does not intend to attack any country, but cautioning that “if a war is imposed, it will be a regional war.” He dismissed repeated U.S. references to aircraft carriers and military threats as not new, recalling similar warnings in the past, and stressed that such rhetoric does not intimidate the Iranian public, adding that Iran would respond decisively to any act of aggression.

President Trump, meanwhile, has continued to pursue a dual-track approach combining pressure and engagement. He has expressed hope that negotiations will lead to an acceptable agreement, while also pointing to the large-scale U.S. military deployment in the region. Trump has confirmed that U.S. representatives are already engaged in talks with Iranian officials, describing them as serious but uncertain, and warning that failure to reach a deal could have negative consequences. As the back and forth of the upcoming U.S.-Iran meeting was taking place on February 4, a reporter asked President Trump “Should the Supreme Leader in Iran be worried right now?” to which President Trump responded, “I would say he should be very worried, yeah, he should be.”

Taken together, these developments point to a moment of strategic suspension rather than resolution. The cycle of escalation appears to have reached its apex, opening a narrow window for diplomacy to re-emerge. While the exact format of the negotiations remains uncertain, the prevailing assessment is that talks will likely go ahead, and that both Tehran and Washington are prepared – at least for now – to test diplomacy once again. Whether this fragile opening leads to sustained de-escalation or collapses under the weight of regional conflicts, domestic political pressures, and unresolved nuclear disputes remains unclear, but for the moment the negotiation table is set, even as the region remains tense, heavily militarized, and vulnerable to miscalculation.

Iran Publishes Names of Protest Victims as Official and Independent Accounts Present Divergent Casualty Figures

Published February 2, 2026

Iranian authorities have officially released a list of names and identifying details of individuals who were killed in the January 2026 protests, marking the first large-scale public disclosure of victim identities by the government since the unrest.

According to a statement issued by the office of President Masoud Pezeshkian, the list includes 2,986 individuals, while the total number of deaths has been set at 3,117. Officials explained that the remaining 131 cases involve unidentified bodies or discrepancies related to civil registry records. The presidency described the publication as part of an effort to provide clarification and stated that all victims are regarded as citizens deserving recognition and dignity. Authorities also announced plans to launch an online platform within 48 hours allowing families to submit additional information for review and verification.

The release of the list has prompted varied responses from civil society groups, medical professionals, and human rights organizations, with independent monitors noting that their own documentation efforts indicate higher casualty figures. The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) has reported that, as of mid-February, more than 6,700 deaths have been verified by the organization, with over 17,000 additional cases under ongoing review. Human rights organizations emphasize that differences in methodology, access to information, and verification standards contribute to the gap between official and independent figures.

Medical professionals have also highlighted the broader humanitarian impact of the protests. A group of Iranian ophthalmologists issued a public statement expressing concern over a “significant rise in severe eye injuries and cases of permanent blindness” among protesters. They attributed these injuries to the widespread use of pellet guns during crowd control operations and called for medical evaluations, independent investigations, and continued treatment and support for affected individuals.

Professional associations, including teachers’ unions, have published their own assessments of the protests’ impact on specific groups. The Teachers’ Syndicate Association reported that more than 150 children and adolescents under the age of 18, as well as over 10 teachers, were killed during the unrest, based on their internal monitoring and field reports. They called for the release of detained students and educators and for greater transparency regarding casualties.

The publication of the victim list coincided with public debate following the suspension of a television program aired on the state-run Ofogh network, after remarks made during the broadcast were widely criticized as inappropriate in reference to the deceased. The program was halted, and the network’s director was removed. Commentary on the incident appeared across a range of Iranian media outlets, including conservative publications, which emphasized respect for all victims regardless of political classification.

Senior government officials have continued to defend the official casualty figures. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated that the government’s total death count remains 3,117, describing higher estimates circulating in international media as unsubstantiated. He stated that any revisions to the official figure would require documented evidence.

Journalistic investigations and testimonies from families have drawn attention to challenges faced by relatives seeking information about missing or deceased loved ones, including delays in body identification and communication restrictions. Observers note that internet disruptions and limits on independent reporting during the unrest have made comprehensive casualty verification difficult.

The publication of the names of those killed has received extensive coverage in Iranian newspapers, some of which dedicated entire front pages to the list. While reactions vary, the disclosure has contributed to a broader public discussion about the human cost of the January protests and the importance of accurate documentation. Analysts note that continued clarification and transparent review processes will be central to reconciling official records with independent findings over time.